The primary motivation for giving aid should always be to help rescue the world’s poorest from the desperate clutch of poverty. However, in political discourse, people regularly frame the British government’s giving of aid as an entirely altruistic pursuit that has no tangible benefits for the people of Britain. 

This has led to a severely warped public perception of how the government was spending their money and its knock-on effects. The rise of political voices calling for reductions in U.K. aid, framed as an effortless money-saving measure, ignores the substantial economic returns that said aid generates for Britain. 

The Moral Case for Aid

Before considering the domestic benefits, it is important to remember that aid exists first and foremost to save lives and offer hope in communities where prosperity is scarce and scarcity is the norm. Estimates that the U.K. Department for International Development suggest that U.K. funding has helped to immunize 76 million children globally and thus saved about 1.4 million lives.

Between 2010 and 2015, U.K. aid supported 11 million children in primary and secondary education, 62.9 million people saw better sanitation and access to clean water and emergency food assistance reached more than 13 million people.

One may view these figures as just numbers but it is key to recognize the lived realities they represent. U.K. aid has transformed millions of lives across the globe. The scale of this impact is hard to ignore and should be central to the case for U.K. aid.

Impact on Trade

Aid can be viewed as a zero-sum game. However, trade is a key area that can grow domestically when aid supports and grows the economy of low-income countries. On an individual level, aid can improve people’s purchasing power, opening up communities as new markets for British products and services. More broadly, aid can stabilize national economies and promote competent economic governance.

Economic and political stability creates stronger trading partners and fosters long-term partnerships that can lead to trade agreements. The Aid for Trade initiative specifically promotes commerce between donor and recipient countries while supporting economic growth and development. 

A report from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has reinforced such benefits. It found that cuts that the Johnson Ministry made to the Official Development Assistance budget cost between £322 million and £423 million in lost U.K. exports. This indicates that, rather than providing savings to the treasury, cuts to U.K. aid actually come at a cost to the U.K. economy.

The Independent Commission for Aid impact found that between 2015 and 2021, the U.K. spent more than $638 million on trade focused programs, with 44% directed to African countries and 20% to Asian countries. This funding has significant potential to open new markets for U.K. businesses. In the U.K., such exports also support around 6.5 million jobs which a government report found to be 21% more productive and 7% better paid than the national average. So, not only does international aid open new markets for businesses, it also provides better paying, more productive jobs that drive innovation, efficiency and long-term economic growth. 

Aid Keeps Us Safer

The use of aid as part of interventions to ensure political and economic stability abroad have much more nuanced outcomes and remain highly controversial. Such interventions usually consist of two components: capacity building, which involves building up the capabilities of a state so it can fulfill its primary functions and legitimacy building, which focuses more on ensuring the people view said government as a legitimate actor.

Such practices can form in the aftermath of military interventions or can be more effectively utilized before such a state failure can occur. The World Bank estimates that for every $1 invested in prevention, about $16 is saved in potential long-term costs. Investing aid before conflict arises can prevent costly military interventions and heavy-handed state-building that often ignores local sociopolitical dynamics. Strengthening pre-existing state structures saves donor countries money and helps prevent conflict, creating a safer, more stable world.

Final Thoughts

Before judging aid based on political convenience, it is important to consider the moral implications and assess where this money can do the most good. The case for increasing international aid must always be framed in these terms. Existing research highlights the inaccuracy of framing such issues in terms of an “us versus them” divide.

When the U.K. government gives aid, it is not wasting money, nor is that money lost to the U.K. forever; it has tangible economic and security benefits that too often go ignored. This reality is key to any political dialogue moving forward to ensure cutting aid is not used as a money-saving political football. 

– Adam Walsh

Adam is based in Burnley, UK and focuses on Good News and Politics for The Borgen Project.

Photo: Pixabay